End Game: Destruction of Freedom of Conscience

The battle lines are drawn and the forces are set upon the free people of humanity. Conscience and our freedom to that conscience is the last bastion
of ideas that unifies all walks of life. Our enemies know this and have secretly engaged in their plans to destroy what is left of this beacon of
hope; this rallying call that unites all of mankind and transcends division. In his notes on the State of Virgina, Thomas Jefferson recognized the
significant factor of such a basic freedom and writes “[t]he rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit.”

Freedom of conscience is uniquely individualistic and is ubiquitous to all of mankind. It is derived, formed and established through the mere fact we
are conscious and we can identify what we hold to be truths. These truths, or rather, as Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence, are
self-evident. Even without adhering to a god or gods, such truths are there. To speak your mind freely, to worship any god you deem to, to be secure
in your own home, to be able to seek out your own American Dream, however you see fit, are all self-evident as they are part of being human.

What is freedom of conscience? It is our minds, our thoughts, our private matters we hold dear to us that we expect to remain private unless we deem
it otherwise. In a recent article by Peggy Noonan, Mr. Hentoff, a stout libertarian, puts it this way. “…there are particular constitutional
liberty rights that [Americans] have that distinguish them from all other people, and one of them is privacy.” That privacy is bound to the very
fact we are human, we are conscious. We choose what is and what is not private when we express our thoughts, create works of art, develop new
technologies, start businesses, and interact among each other.

The governments of the world, and particularly my own, have been hard at work on diminishing this freedom. To do so, lines of division are drawn to
place otherwise normal people into separate camps. For example; pro-life/pro-choice, religious/secular, republican/democrat, etc, etc. While these
divisions occur naturally as people are free to develop their own conscience on these matters, it is very evident that the government is deep in
sophistry and subterfuge. It has created great chasm between competing ideas and set upon to destroy those it doesn't deem fit to survive.

This is the basis of the Ninth Amendment in the United State's Constitution. It encapsulates the notion and idea of a freedom of conscience and it
is one that we, as a people, have not submitted to the government. Of course, this is the purest notion of what that freedom is and how we should
hold it in reverence, it is furthest from the reality. Groups of all kind force their conscience upon others on a daily basis. In the free-market of
competing ideas, this isn't dangerous. It is healthy. What isn't healthy is for a government to take sides, regardless of the stance. If the
People of California want to have a "Free the Turkey Day" in lieu of Thanksgiving, that is the Peoples' right to do so and that is the right of
conscience. Likewise, if the People of Nevada want to have prostitution, it is their collective conscience that deems it okay.

When Government decides we need to think, feel, or be a certain way -- they are directing our conscience in manners in which we never allowed. When
the Government decides we need to accept differences, accept diversity, accept anything in which we have decided we do not, that is a direct attack on
our conscience. We are told, through subtle messaging and party division to deem the 'other team's' ideas as diametrically opposed to our own.
Not only opposed, but that their belief is wrong and ours is right. This division is not unnatural though. Government makes it such by placing us
into neat, tidy boxes. This compartmentalization serves to divide a people and discourage the free-exchange of ideas. Instead, it creates
decisiveness, derision, hatred, zealotry and idolatry to our conscience -- which if you are following is no longer our own because it is directed now
by the State through various methods.

The State has sought to wage war against our most intimate freedom, our freedom of conscience. It is up to individuals to recognize that we have and
should never, submit such a freedom to allow any government to dictate how we should feel or be. In some areas, we have already acquiesced such
freedoms, but they are not wholly the States yet.

Mark Twain once wrote “It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom
of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either.” We might be finding our voice once again but are we willing to understand that each of
us has our own conscience and are willing to practice such a freedom without fear of the State encroaching upon it to deem what we have determined to
be right and wrong, as their own?

Thank you, O.P., this is what the war directly relates to using some of the same tactics that an abusive spouse uses on their significant other.

I mean, it does not all apply, but definitely the part about feeling afraid to speak your mind and have your own opinions. In the end, consciousness
can't be destroyed, it will always exist, possibly in the shadows, but being a stronger force than zombie folk, it is sure to re-emerge.

If you check out my philosophy, it is heavily written in order to combat this exact threat, without any reference to God. The whole point of it is to
at least provide some kind of mental defense in a situation where it is needed.

Sometimes, a philosophy can give one the justification he or she needs and the legitimacy he or she needs to move forward against unfavorable odds. It
is strange how this works.

My philosophy is written assuming that God is not going to be a legitimate source of power under hard-line atheist rule. It is also, however, written
in such a manner that extremist religious forces that defy logic can be defended against.

These truths, or rather, as Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence, are self-evident.

You may be aware of this, but that is not the context Jefferson meant that statement to be taken at all. It clearly refers to the statements that
follow it, along the lines of "we hold these truths to be self-evident... that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights,
among these the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

The "pursuit of happiness" might encapsulate your concepts here, but the coining of our own individualistic truths are not the truths that are
"self evident"- those that are expressly listed there are. Self-evident is a very specific phrase that was extremely common in the philosophical
writings of the day, and has an agreed upon defintion in those writings that Rene Descartes and others came up with, namely that it refers to a truth
that proves itself without question, like the statements "All lions are lions", or a less obvious but still very strong candidate, "1+1=2".

I agree with your thesis that the right to act as we feel ethical, where that action does not unecessarily harm others, should be a right reserved to
us.

It is my belief that conscription by the draft through selective services is a clear violation of that right.

I would also like to point out if you live your life not afraid of death you are free. And since we are all going to die anyway, it is like an amazing
trade-off - especially if you end up with some super exciting death.

I'm not promoting violence at all - just personal empowerment and such.

I agree with your thesis that the right to act as we feel ethical, where that action does not unecessarily harm others, should be a right reserved to
us.

This is where it gets a bit tricky. What if the state of Mississippi decides to bring back slavery? Should the Federal Government step in and say, you
can't do that? Seems like an easy answer, but what about things that are not as cut and dry? For example, if a state decides to outlaw abortion, one
could argue that this would hurt women by forcing them to go through an unwanted pregnancy. Should the state be allowed to do that? The states that
have decided to ban gay marriage hurt (not physically, but mentally) those gays who want to get a marriage license in that state. Should this be
allowed? It's one thing to argue that a state should be able to have a "save the turkey" day, it's quite another to say that a state should be
allowed to trample other people's rights.

Those are all situations where it isn't clear that our right to do as we believe is ethical won't harm others, and in those situations more
constraints or ethical norms are needed to answer the questions posed in each.

That an ethical statement does not apply outside its domain (in this case, the domain is cases where it is clear others won't be harmed by the
ethical choice being up to the agent) is not necessarily a sign of being unsound.

Originally posted by mideast
And you will see more true face of US govt soon.

more restrictions and more control.

Even though west is condemning Muslim countries for their rules , they are taking as much freedom from their people as they can.

There is no country on the planet where people are treated like US.

US govt and NWO supporters once were thinking that they will corrupt the planet and rule the jungle.

But they were dreaming wrong. Their dream doesn't matter. God doesn't want this planet to get all corrupted.

Peace , to peace supporters.

And what if the state of Texas overwhelmingly decides to execute all Muslims who enter the state of Texas, because the Muslim religion is counter to
the overwhelmingly Christian religion of the state's citizens (that's not as far out as you might think). Should they have the freedom to do that?

I'm anti-government, because I believe power will lead to wanting to keep that power. Some may want to have power in order to do good, but once they
get a taste of power they want to keep it instead, or they find out that they can do little because a lot of influential people (those in other power
positions) restrain them from doing so.

The government gives you the illusion of having freedom. Not in everything, we do have a lot more freedom nowadays compared to other governments. And
they give us the illusion of control. Voting for example, that's illusion of control.

Influential people have deep roots in our societies, and there are people who want money and power who keep them strong, or naive minds that think
they can change society, and become puppets of those influential people instead.

I don't think protesting works that well, unless in a dictatorship. Not in our society at last.

We need to develop some kind of underground culture. A culture that refrains from feeding those powerful people.
I try to do that by not buying from huge companies, instead supporting the smaller companies, but yeah sometimes I don't have a choice.

AboveTopSecret is a great start. Though I sense much fear here, and fear leads to anger, anger leads to hatred, hatred leads to suffering.

Stop going to McDonalds.
Stop going on Facebook.
Stop going on Google. (this one is very hard, I haven't found a way to do it)
Stop voting.
Stop buying Apple.
Stop buying Coca Cola.

It's hard but seek for alternatives. Stop being dependent on the powerful ones. Support people who need the money. Help out people. Educate each
other. Let the alternative not become the dominant one neither.

IMPORTANT Protesting can help in a way. But don't resort to illegal ways. Don't resort to violence or vandalism. We don't life in such a
authority, and this authority knows how to use it against us. When people resort to violence or vandalism the media will say "look at them, they have
no respect to your possessions or people"

My dream is that we develop a underground culture of educated, strong-willed people, that slowly consume those in power and let them fall from their
throne. Think of this from Fight Club:

"Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on: we cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your
ambulances, we guard you while you sleep. Do not # with us."

Know that they depend on us for their power. We can continue to feed the fat guy or stop giving him food.

I would submit that since consciousness is not a physical attribute it can never be denied its freedom. They could win the battle of physical freedom
but they could never begin to control the freedom of one's thought. And it is that thought that controls the physical world.

It is not just in the States that this is happening but also in most of the once developed world, we are being systematically stripped of our rights
and freedoms and this as well as being a possible coup from the top down may very well be the enactment of a 1970's directive to control the
population in view of the projected growth outstripping the supply of resources and whatever it's origin this in undoubtedly an organised and highly
structured covert plan to suppress the population of these once democratically powerful populations and seed that power into a few select hand's,.

Nothing new in this but they are doing it now and to us.
S+F

I believe it was alternative 2 or a variant on it leading to population control and if it fails a mass release of viral strains with the inoculation
rationed to only those seen as valuable to the new order with a strengthening of the military and police to minimize chaos during the infection stage.

Originally posted by joeraynorreply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread965409/pg1#pid16816306]post by

These truths, or rather, as Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence, are self-evident.

You may be aware of this, but that is not the context Jefferson meant that statement to be taken at all. It clearly refers to the statements that
follow it, along the lines of "we hold these truths to be self-evident... that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights,
among these the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

How is my usage out of context though? Here is what I wrote, in its entirety:

"Freedom of conscience is uniquely individualistic and is ubiquitous to all of mankind. It is derived, formed and established through the mere fact we
are conscious and we can identify what we hold to be truths. These truths, or rather, as Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence, are
self-evident. Even without adhering to a god or gods, such truths are there. To speak your mind freely, to worship any god you deem to, to be secure
in your own home, to be able to seek out your own American Dream, however you see fit, are all self-evident as they are part of being human."

I was not taking Jefferson's words out of context as the context is that those ideals, those Rights, are self-evident; obvious; apparent. Just
because he didn't say that Freedom of Conscience is self-evident, it was among them, as highlighted by the fact that no Government or even document
could ever enumerate all that which the People held to be a Right.

The "pursuit of happiness" might encapsulate your concepts here, but the coining of our own individualistic truths are not the truths that are
"self evident"- those that are expressly listed there are.

This thinking that you present is why I also highlighted the Ninth Amendment. The Amendment that James Madison put in to show that just because
certain rights are listed, doesn't mean it is an exhaustive list nor does it mean the government can encroach upon those Rights unless they
have been given tacit authority to do so.

Self-evident is a very specific phrase that was extremely common in the philosophical writings of the day, and has an agreed upon defintion in
those writings that Rene Descartes and others came up with, namely that it refers to a truth that proves itself without question, like the statements
"All lions are lions", or a less obvious but still very strong candidate, "1+1=2".

It isn't any different than it was then. "obvious, apparent" are exactly what was meant then as it is now. It is self-evident that we are sentient
beings. That we are conscious beings. That we are capable of free-will. That we are capable of self-government (could be argued).

When Jefferson wrote those words he also included 'among these...', leaving to reason that there are other Rights Man holds that may not be listed
that are just as self-evident.

It is my belief that conscription by the draft through selective services is a clear violation of that right.

I agree but if the People have given that Right to the Government to exploit, than it is no longer the Government that is in the wrong, but the People
who have allowed it to happen.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
This is where it gets a bit tricky. What if the state of Mississippi decides to bring back slavery? Should the Federal Government step in and say, you
can't do that?

This point is moot as it stands now. The States and the People respectively have placed into the Constitution that the act of slavery is outlawed.
So regardless if any State -- or it's People -- try to say they want it back, they are now acting against the Constitution of the United States of
America.

So yes, it is an easy answer.

For example, if a state decides to outlaw abortion, one could argue that this would hurt women by forcing them to go through an unwanted
pregnancy. Should the state be allowed to do that? The states that have decided to ban gay marriage hurt (not physically, but mentally) those gays who
want to get a marriage license in that state. Should this be allowed? It's one thing to argue that a state should be able to have a "save the
turkey" day, it's quite another to say that a state should be allowed to trample other people's rights.

Now we are getting into a real question. A question that transcends party lines and also that of 'code' (or law if you want) and Constitutional
mandate.

Regarding abortion, that is upheld by Federal law, does not satisfy the original intent of the design of the Constitution. Federal law doesn't
always trump State law -- see Bond v. United States. In this matter, it should be left to the Tenth Amendment and the respective States (and the
People) to decide how best to deal with the practice. Many states would allow it while some would not. That was the true power of Federalism.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
And what if the state of Texas overwhelmingly decides to execute all Muslims who enter the state of Texas, because the Muslim religion is counter to
the overwhelmingly Christian religion of the state's citizens (that's not as far out as you might think). Should they have the freedom to do that?

Before I begin, JPZ says hello.

Now that out of the way, I believe you are now arguing against States' Rights vs. Central Rule, in which this thread wasn't about but only hinted
at.

In your example above, it is non-sequitur as such would explicitly encroaching on a number of Natural Rights held as self-evident; namely freedom of
religion and the practice thereof, freedom to secure in ones' self, freedom of life, etc.

Originally posted by joer4x4
I would submit that since consciousness is not a physical attribute it can never be denied its freedom. They could win the battle of physical freedom
but they could never begin to control the freedom of one's thought. And it is that thought that controls the physical world.

History is replete with failed controls.

Neither can speech, as it isn't a physical attribute but it has been denied throughout history. Neither is love, but we have some that are willing
to deny those who profess it. Just because it isn't tangible, doesn't make it any less of a right than say -- the right to spit -- the right to
walk with your left leg only -- to walk against traffic -- etc, etc.

If you don't think there has been an on going battle for your thoughts, I implore you to look around. The "right" is told to hate the "left".
Republicans are baby eaters and Democrats are brain suckers. Mexicans are evil/dirty/etc.

Here is an easier concept; "political correctness". The very statement attacks the conscience of an individual based solely on vernacular or
vocabulary. I say "cockpit" -- I am sexiest. I say "brown bag" -- I must mean Mexicans and not my bag lunch my wife made me.

The war is real and we will lose continually if we have people who think it cannot be taken away; it already has.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and
countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent
despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an
individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the
purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual
mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies
and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign
influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the
will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the
spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not
with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From
their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of
excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to
prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

The day our Country decides to elect a great leader like this again,or is able to listen to our Founding Fathers and to take what they said to heart,
is the day that this Nation can get back to living without a two party system or a system designed to shackle our minds.. A system that has
overwhelmed its citizens with BS. A system designed to capture us with mental slavery, and has done this for the past 100 years.

I could go on and on with great speeches or great quotes, but unfortunately, they fall on deaf ears. We live in a day and age where our freedoms are
watered down to which color of pants we are to wear today. What team we are to root for. Who is the Worst President. Who gets the blame.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.